Stanford's Authoritative Alternative To Wikipedia

eldavojohn writes "For decades, Stanford has been working on a different kind of Wikipedia. It might even be considered closer to a peer-reviewed journal, since you have get submissions past a 120 person group of leading philosophers around the world, not to mention Stanford's administration. It has several layers of approval, but the authoritative model produces high quality content — even if it only amounts to 1,200 articles. Content you can read straight through to find everything pertinent — not hop around following link after link like the regular Wikipedia. You might question the need for this, but one of the originators says, 'Our model is authoritative. [Wikipedia's] model is one an academic isn't going to be attracted to. If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and change this.' The site has articles covering topics from Quantum Computing to technical luminaries like Kurt Friedrich Gödel and Alan Turing. The principal editor said, 'It's the natural thing to do. I'm surprised no one is doing it for the other disciplines.'"

tags are correct

[yincrash]

this has already been attempted. however, if stanford can keep it going and make sure it keeps reviewing then it could work. Can I submit a wikipedia article for peer reviewed inclusion?

Re:tags are correct

[Anonymous Coward]

The article about 4chan on this server should be awesome...

Re:Wow

[bbtom]

Yes, please give me information that is only approved by authority figures.

Let me guess: 9-11 truther? ;-)

Here, fixed that for you

[Dalzhim]

If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and do better.

Decades...

[KimmoS]

"For decades, Stanford has been working on a different kind of Wikipedia"

http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/content.php?theme=3&music=11&url=plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/ [wonder-tonic.com]

Wikipedia if Run By Academic Experts..

[kevinNCSU]

So the article is titled:

"Wikipedia, if it were run by academic experts, would look like this"

Intrigued I clicked the link and got a firefox unable to connect/page unavailable error. So in principle I agree. This is exactly what a webpage with wikipedia's user base would look like if it were run by Academics.

Re:Academics

[Abstrackt]

Your comment reminds me of a demotivational poster: "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

Re:Academics

[Beerdood]

over where the place the word 'the'

Well let's hope someone besides you made the final decision on that one

Re:Academics

[sexconker]

A bunch of GS-12+ civilian employees arguing for half an hour over where the place the word 'the'.

It appears to me that we need to have our discussion at least once more...

Re:It is getting pretty popular, actually

[Itninja]

All I know is this: if I can't ctrl-a, ctrl-c, ctrl-v, grep out all special characters, then take that and ctrl-a, ctrl-c, and ctrl-v into a Slashdot comment to appear learned, and then delete the article to cover my tracks....it's not a valid source of information.

Re:Wikipedia if Run By Academic Experts..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see Wikipedia if it were actually ran by a wolfpack.

Er... I think that's what we've already got.